Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001 <br /> (#13) #01-2727 MARY AND JOE KING, 142 CHEVY CHASE DRIVE,VARIANCES, <br /> 9:24 p.m.—9:37 p.m. <br /> Mary and Joe King, Applicants, were present, along with Mark Sharratt,Architect, and Jeff Switzer, <br /> Architect. <br /> The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. <br /> Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting a lot area variance to construct a new residence on the <br /> lot. The Applicant's initial proposal has been revised,with the proposed size of the residence being <br /> downsized to 14.9 percent structural coverage, meeting the 15 percent structural coverage for the lot. <br /> The Applicants have indicated a desire to retain an in ground pool on the property. Orono City <br /> Ordinance adopted in February, 1990, states that pools, including pool basin and associated deck or <br /> patio areas, regardless of whether such pool basin, deck, or patio is enclosed with a fence, shall be <br /> included in the calculation of lot coverage by structures. The proposed residence,pool,and deck total <br /> 6,790 square feet or 23.2 percent structural coverage. <br /> City Staff is considering the possibility of revisiting the ordinance and amending the ordinance,with <br /> Planning Commission review in November. The Applicants have stated they would remove the pool <br /> when the existing residence is demolished if their lot area variance is approved. However,the <br /> Applicants would prefer to delay removal of the pool until the ordinance has been revisited and a <br /> determination is made as to whether pools should be included in structural lot coverage. However, <br /> they will then have an accessory structure without a principal residence. A variance for this needs to <br /> be applied for and approved prior to construction of the new residence. <br /> Staff is recommending approval of the lot area variance with the condition that the pool be removed <br /> when the house is demolished. Staff also recommends the granting of a conditional variance for <br /> accessory structure without a principal structure,which would only be effective if the code is changed <br /> prior to the demolition of the house to no longer calculate pools and their patios as lot coverage. <br /> Weinberger stated the City has received a petition from a number of the adjoining property owners <br /> indicating they are supportive of the project. <br /> Mark Sharratt stated the Applicants would like to replace the existing house since it is outdated and <br /> rebuild on the lot. Sharratt stated the only variance they are requesting at this time is a lot area <br /> variance,but they would like to request the City reconsider their ordinance regarding pools and <br /> whether pools should be included in the structural lot coverage. Sharratt stated the property owners <br /> would prefer to keep the pool if at all possible. <br /> Mrs. King requested the Planning Commission reconsider their ordinance,noting they would like to <br /> retain the pool. <br /> There were no public comments relating to this application. <br /> Lindquist inquired whether the Planning Commission would need to review the ordinance. <br /> Gaffron stated at the time this ordinance was adopted,he was opposed to including pools and their <br /> patios as structural coverage in the ordinance back in 1990. Gaffron stated the intent of the ordinance <br /> was to regulate visual density, bulk and massing of structures on property, with the Council electing <br /> PAGE 23 <br />